I want to step back for a moment. Three and a half years ago, I sought the nomination for the Conservative Party. At that time, I was not a political guru. Part of the nomination process was to go through the policies of the government. I read the Conservative policies and realized that they so applied to me. These were policies that spoke to caring for our families, supporting our businesses, ensuring that we are participants rather than observers in the global economy, caring for our seniors and our veterans, and promoting jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity, to name but a few.

Economic action plan 2014 builds on those policies and those initiatives. Today I want to focus a bit on those that are particularly important to northern Ontario and Sault Ste. Marie.

My history is in northern Ontario. I went to high school in North Bay, when my father was stationed there as part of the Canadian Armed Forces. I went to college in Sudbury and got a diploma from Cambrian College and then received a university degree from Laurentian University. I then moved to Sault Ste. Marie, where I reside now. I have been there for 33 years. During that tenure, I travelled all around northern Ontario as part of the Ontario March of Dimes, so I am very familiar with northern Ontario and its needs.

One of the most important components of the economic action plan is FedNor, which is the economic development fund for northern Ontario. It is a significant fund. The economic action plan continues to fund this program. It is a program that delivers programs that support innovation, sustainable community economic development, and business growth and competitiveness. Since 2006, $329 million has been funded through FedNor for 1,600 projects across northern Ontario that have created 21,000 jobs.

As part of economic action plan 2014, the minister announced what is called the targeted manufacturing fund, which is part of FedNor. This would provide financing for operational assessments and upgrading capital equipment. I encourage those who are watching at home to go to fednor.gc.ca to learn more about the programs offered through FedNor.

On December 4, the Minister for FedNor announced the community investment initiative for northern Ontario. This is a great initiative for rural municipalities and first nations communities that will facilitate staffing, the identification of opportunities, and the management of local economic development efforts to strengthen the economy and create jobs. Up to $100,000 per year is available over a three-year period for non-repayable financing toward staffing positions.

This agency has been incredible in Sault Ste. Marie. I just want to speak to a couple of the projects that have occurred in Sault Ste. Marie.

One is a company called JD Aero Maintenance. FedNor provided financing of $475,000 to assist it in its hanger development. As a result of that, it has created 28 jobs in Sault Ste. Marie, as JD Aero services the last Porter flight that comes into Sault Ste. Marie every evening.

Recently, $762,000 went to the Innovation Centre to deliver broadband e-business and marketing and innovation accelerator programs to enhance innovation, commercialization, management, and trade capacity for small and medium enterprises in northern Ontario over the next two years.

The Economic Development Corporation in Sault Ste. Marie just received $2.2 million. This is for an incredible new initiative in Sault Ste. Marie. A study done in 2013 by KPMG stated that the “economic and other benefits of the proposed harbour expansion are expected to be significant”. The report states that combined with anticipated production capacity increases by Sault Ste. Marie's steel products manufacturers, the expanded port would add as much as $228 million to Canada's GDP and would support up to 1,800 new employment positions as a result of the direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts. It would provide $262 million in economic activity generated by the infrastructure investments in the harbour and would support just under 1,400 person years of employment.

The project right now is in the process of establishing the critical path for port development. They are doing logistics, a market and commercial sensitivity analysis, a traffic forecast, and business planning and development. There is also port project infrastructure planning, design, and preparation, port logistics, and the preparation of the business case. That is what is really critical. Once that is done, the port project will apply to the new building Canada fund. This is a national infrastructure component. This project is a $120-million to $150-million investment that will happen in Sault Ste. Marie.

That leads me to another component of economic action plan 2014 that is incredibly important to northern Ontario and to all of Canada, and that is the new building Canada fund. The new building Canada plan is the largest long-term infrastructure plan in Canadian history. It will provide stable funding for a 10-year period. It includes the community improvement fund, consisting of the gas tax fund and the incremental business services tax rebate for municipalities. This will provide $32 billion to municipalities for projects such as roads, public transit, recreational facilities, and other community infrastructure.

I spent eight years on city council in Sault Ste. Marie, and one of the biggest concerns was infrastructure funding. Through our gas tax fund, which we will increase by at least 2% per year, we have put $4.6 million a year for the past couple of years into that fund for major infrastructure projects for Sault Ste. Marie.

There will also be a $14-billion new Canada fund, which will consist of the $4-billion national infrastructure component that will support projects of national significant. For smaller communities, there is the $10-billion provincial-territorial infrastructure component for projects of national, regional, or local significance. Of this amount, $1 billion is dedicated to projects in communities such as Sault Ste. Marie, with populations of fewer than 100,000 residents.

An additional $1.25 billion will be put into the P3 public private partnership Canada fund, and that will go along with the $6 billion in funding that continues to flow across the country this year and beyond under existing infrastructure programs.

I want to talk a little bit about taxes. The average family of four, under our government, pays $3,400 a year less than when we formed government. We formed government in 2006. Since then, we have administered over 160 tax cuts, and most recently, under economic action plan 2014, we have done some incredible things for families.

The first is the universal child care increase. It was originally $100 per month. It would now go up to $160 per month. If a family has a child under six years of age, there would be $1,920 available to use as the family sees fit. We would also expand the program to include funds for children aged six to 17. We would put $60 a month into that program, so there would be an additional $720 a year available.

On top of that, we have introduced the family tax cut, which is geared towards couples with minor children. This would allow a transfer of up to $50,000 a year in income to the spouse in the lower tax bracket, and it would be capped at a $2,000 credit. We would also increase the child care expense deduction limit by $1,000 and double the fitness tax credit to $1,000 and make it refundable. These initiatives in economic action plan 2014 would put an average of $1,140 back into the pockets of families with children.

On top of that, we have introduced initiatives for empowering Canadian consumers, investing in skills and training, investing in Canada's youth, supporting small business, supporting seniors, supporting Canada's veterans, and supporting Canada's farmers.

I could go on and on. I am just very proud to stand here and talk about these policies that are so incredibly important to Canadians.

In his speech, he mentioned a harbour expansion project in Sault Ste. Marie. My speech on Bill C-43 basically dealt with issues related to the amendments the bill would make to the Canada Marine Act. Those amendments were hidden in the omnibus bill and were not even examined by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

However, I would like to inform my colleague that the president of the Association of Canadian Port Authorities told the Standing Committee on Finance that the federal government was not providing sufficient funding to support the development of Canadian ports.

Was my colleague aware of that? What will the government propose to resolve this serious problem, which affects Canada's ability to play a major role on the international stage?

Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of that, because I did not hear the member's speech, quite frankly. Although I did sit in on the budget implementation clause by clause, that did not come up during my time.

I am aware, however, that there is an initiative on the table by the federal government. I believe it is a $40-million initiative specific to enhancing ports. In my own riding, we will be looking into those funds. That will not apply to our deep sea harbour, which has not been constructed. It will be for existing ports and harbours.

I would anticipate that those funds would be able to assist the member. I am certainly prepared to meet with him afterward to discuss it more fully and so he can brief me.

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about tax breaks. One of the things that has come across to Canadians is the government's arrogance concerning its income splitting tax proposal. At the core is a $2-billion plan, which would be financed by the middle class of Canada, and the people who would benefit from it would be less than 15% of the population.

How does the member or his government justify having the middle class pay for a $2-billion commitment for less than 15% of Canada's population?

Mr. Speaker, what is most important, as I mentioned in my speech, is that the average family of four would pay $3,400 less per year in taxes. What we have introduced with our new tax plan would mean that every single family that has children under the age of 17 would benefit.

I am not sure I agree with the comment that we would only be reaching 15%. That being said, every single proposal the government puts forward does not necessarily meet the needs of the population as a whole. When we talk about veterans, there are currently 200,000 veterans we are putting in programs for through Veterans Canada, at a cost of $3.5 billion a year. Those programs impact veterans. We have to look at the broad scope.

Mr. Speaker, the member will note that the Liberal member who just stood up said that tax cuts cost the middle class money. In reality, tax cuts save the middle class money. The reality is that when families have to pay less tax, that does not cost them money. It saves them money. It means they can go out and spend in their communities or on raising their families.

The member raised the issue of family tax fairness, which allows a single-income family to have the same tax bill as a dual-income family making the same amount of money. That would help about two million families in this country. On top of that, we have increased the universal child care benefit by $720 a year and have extended that additional benefit to children over the age of five.

I wonder if the member, who knows a lot about northern Ontario communities, can tell us whether families in his riding would prefer to have money in their pockets to make the right decisions for their children or whether they would like the Liberal Party to take that money back and spend it on a government day care program, which will not help 90% of families.

Mr. Speaker, to respond to the question, it is obvious what Canadians want: Canadians want choice. What we are providing them is more discretionary income to use as they see fit, and that is incredibly important to all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in respect to our budget, and there are many wonderful things to be said about some of the measures across the board. However, I will spend the limited time I have speaking in respect to the family tax measures.

I sincerely believe, after now some 18 years in this place, and I have seen it more and more across our country, that support of family is absolutely vital. It is very crucial. If we support family, we will not be paying the costs in terms of the health care system, social welfare system, and justice system. However, if we choose to undermine and hurt family by way of regressive tax policies and numerous other things, then we do it to our own detriment, and we will eventually pay through the nose in various other programs.

I am pleased to see that our Conservative government has followed through on its election promise to introduce income splitting with our new family tax cut. Of course, there is always more that can be done in these areas in respect of providing tax relief for individuals, but I am excessively proud of the fact that we have done this for our country and for our families in particular.

I was one of a handful individuals in the early days some years back who agitated, pushed, and provoked for this. The groundswell, that momentum, grew such that we have these very commendable provisions of income tax splitting for families.

To get into specifics, the family tax cut is a federal tax credit that would allow a higher-income spouse to transfer up to $50,000 of taxable income to a spouse in a lower tax bracket. That credit would provide tax relief, presently capped at $2,000, for couples with children under the age of 18, effective for the 2014 tax year.

Income splitting is already helping seniors across the country. I hear reports of that in my riding, with gratefulness expressed on the help that it is to them. It is also why the government is now proposing a similar relief for other families as well.

Increasing the universal child care benefit, UCCB, for children under the age of six is a measure we are implementing. As of January 1, 2015, parents would receive a benefit of $160 per month for each child under the age of six, which is up from the current $100 per month, and that is important. In a year, parents would receive up to $1,920 per child.

Expanding the UCCB to children aged 6 to 17 is another one of our measures here. It is a new measure as of January 1, 2015. Under the expanded UCCB, parents would receive a benefit of $60 a month per child aged 6 through 17. Therefore, in a year, parents would receive up to $720 per child through that particular measure.

As another measure, we are increasing the child care expense deduction dollar limits by $1,000 effective for the 2015 tax year. The maximum amounts that can be claimed would increase to $8,000 from $7,000 per child under the age of 7, and it would increase to $5,000 from $4,000 for children aged 7 through 16.

It would also increase to $11,000 from $10,000 for children who are eligible for the disability tax credit, which is near and dear to my heart. I understand, on a personal and first-hand basis, the challenges of parents and families who have kids with disabilities. They are special children in our world, and our government, thankfully, is taking some measures to effect some positive benefits for these families in respect to those dear children.

Families could claim the family tax cut in the spring of 2015 when they file their 2014 tax returns. They would begin to receive payments under the enhanced UCCB in July 2015, this coming summer. The July UCCB payment would include up to six months of benefits to cover the period from January through June, and so it would be a catch-up for the prior six months. The enhanced UCCB would replace the existing child tax credit, CTC, for the 2015 and subsequent tax years.

I should remark, so that there is no misinformation or misunderstanding—because we have had questions in my constituency office, as other members will no doubt—on the enhanced UCCB replacing the existing child tax credit, CTC. I want to be clear that this is different from the Canada child tax benefit, or CCTB. There are all these acronyms that are important to understand. That significant benefit would continue on. The Canada child tax benefit is a significant benefit to low-income families and some middle-income families. It would continue on in addition to these new benefits that have just been announced to kick in starting January 1, 2015.

The government would continue the Canada child tax benefit, but as I said, it would merge the child tax credit with the universal child care benefit.

The child tax credit provides up to about $344 per child, per year, and it only goes to families with children under the age of 18 who paid federal income tax, whereas the UCCB would provide at least $720 per child, per year, and would go to every family with children under 18 years of age. It is not a means-based, income-tested provision, but it is one that would go to every family.

Members across the way, including the Liberal member who spoke just prior, have inferred that it would not apply to a lot of people, only 15%. If I were not in this place, I would use another term to describe what those members said. They are trying to confuse Canadians by giving them misinformation with respect to this. This would benefit people across the board. I think it is some 80%. The majority of Canadian families would benefit from this.

These new provisions mean that all families with children would benefit from these new measures introduced by our government. The average tax relief and benefits for these families would be $1,140 in 2015. Low- and middle-income families would receive two-thirds of the overall benefits provided by the package. The family tax cut would eliminate or significantly reduce the difference in the federal tax payable by a one-earner couple relative to a two-earner couple with a similar family income.

Earlier this month, the government announced its intention as well to double the children's fitness tax credit and make it refundable. It would come as an actual cheque instead of being taken off income tax paid.

The maximum amount of expenses that may be claimed under the credit would be doubled from its current limit to $1,000 for the 2014 tax year and subsequent tax years. The credit would be made refundable, effective 2015 and subsequent tax years.

Canadians at all income levels benefit from the federal tax relief measures introduced since 2006, with low- and middle-income Canadians receiving proportionately greater relief.

I want to give a case study as to how the family tax cut would work for many Canadian families.

As an example, Pat and Chris are a two-earner couple with children. Pat earns $60,000 of taxable income and Chris earns $12,000, for a combined taxable income of $72,000. Pat faces a marginal federal tax rate of 22% and Chris is in the first tax bracket, where income is taxed at 15%. Since the value of Chris' non-refundable tax credits is greater than the tax on taxable income, he does not pay any federal tax presently. So, for federal tax purposes under the proposed family tax cut, Pat would be able to, in effect, transfer $24,000 of taxable income to Chris and that would bring their taxable incomes for the purposes of calculating the credit to $36,000 each, which puts both of them in that 15% tax bracket. In addition, Chris would be able to use up his unused non-refundable tax credits with the notional transfer of income. As one person in the couple may claim the family tax cut, they decided Pat would be the one to do so. The family tax cut would reduce Pat's tax payable by about $1,260 in 2014, taking into account both the reduced tax on their taxable incomes and the additional value of the non-refundable credits that Chris is able to use. That would give them a great benefit.

I would like to explain what the combined benefits of the family tax cut and the enhanced UCCB would mean to another Canadian family. Dale and Kelly are a two-earner couple with two children aged seven and three. Kelly earns $95,000 and Dale earns $25,000. To sum it up, this family would be better off by about $7,285 in 2015 as a result of all of the benefits that would be derived from this recently announced package.

I am proud of this. If we can help families, then we are helping society. We are also helping ourselves as a government. There would be less of a tax burden in the welfare system, the justice system, and the health system.

Helping families, the basic building blocks of society, is always a good thing to do. I am very proud that our Conservative government is doing just that.

Mr. Speaker, my question is in relation to a program that the Liberal Party has talked about a great deal. That is the EI premium exemption, which would apply for every new hire for employers. It was exceptionally well received by different stakeholders who have given it credit. It has the potential of creating literally tens of thousands of jobs.

If we compare that to the government's plan, which is the small business job credit plan, it is questionable in terms of the number of jobs it would create. It is very expensive, and a number are suggesting that it would, in some bizarre, twisted way, actually provide an incentive to lay off some people who are in marginal types of positions.

Could the member explain to the House why the government is not recognizing the valuable idea that has been put forward by the Liberal Party, which would actually create literally thousands of jobs for every region of our country?

Mr. Speaker, I do know, and to the Liberal member opposite, the Liberal Party, not the classic liberals per se, has never met a tax it did not like, or a tax it did not hike.

Business owners are always glad when there is some relief in respect to the benefit packages they pay, as long as there is good benefit for their employees.

Our party has done the right thing. We have had some pretty good reviews of that approach as well. I know the member is being a bit selective in terms of suggesting it would not help, but by and large, our program has helped. We have done a great thing for business owners across the country in the package of reforms we have done over the course of the years we have been in government, since 2006. We have some of the lowest unemployment rates in the world at this point and we are pretty grateful for that as well.

All in all, our package is doing what it ought to do in producing the jobs, the income, and the employment for people across our fair country.

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to the budget implementation legislation before us. There are two or three points that I would like to pick up on, which I have already had the opportunity to express at least in part, through questions to the former two speakers.

Let me start by talking about time allocation. I will be very brief on that particular point, but I want to read a quote that I have referenced in the past. This is a quote from the Prime Minister, back in the days when he was in opposition. This was before he was the Prime Minister. This is what he had to say about the type of legislation that we are debating today:

We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse? Dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent views of their constituents on each of the different components in the bill.

He went on to comment on how the budget bill, then a Liberal budget bill, was virtually an affront to democracy and the functionality of Parliament. That was what the Prime Minister said back in the days when he was in opposition.

Liberals recognize that there are other aspects brought into budget implementation bills, which the Liberal Party did when it was in government. We recognize that at times there is even a need for things like time allocation. The Liberal Party did that too. However, what is worthy of noting is that never in the history of our federation have we seen such an assault on the democratic principles of accountability and transparency in this House as the majority Conservative government has been exercising in the last few years.

We are talking about massive budget implementation bills, into the thousands of pages combined, in three or four budgets. That is totally unacceptable. We are talking about a record number of time allocation motions, approximately 90, give or take two or three. Time allocation means that government is preventing members of Parliament from standing to speak on important pieces of legislation. What could be more important than the budget when government is spending billions of Canadian tax dollars? Time and time again, the government uses time allocation, not only for this, but it seems for all pieces of legislation. It is a tool that it has been abusing at great cost.

I want to talk about income splitting because it is an important issue. It is more than symbolic. It is an issue that is going to cost, some say $2 billion. I might even suggest that is underestimating it. We are talking about at least $2 billion in taxes. Who is paying the bill for that? Primarily, it is going to be the middle class of Canada who are going to have to come up with that $2 billion.That $2 billion is then going to be given out for income splitting, which a vast majority of Canadians will not see one penny of. There is less than 15% of Canada's population who will receive a benefit from that $2 billion tax for income splitting.

I believe that it encourages inequality and that the government has it wrong. I am glad that the leader of the Liberal Party has taken the right position on this particular issue.

It is interesting that the more the Liberals push on this issue, the more the government says, “Well, we have this child care issue, and that is going to have a lot more impact for all Canadians”. The Conservatives are bundling that into the income splitting because they know that the income split is wrong. A number of Conservatives know that. If we listen to what they have to say, many of them have deep respect for the late Jim Flaherty, the former finance minister. He put together the budget we are debating and was opposed to the income split, and he had a good solid reason. The Liberal Party agrees with the the late Conservative finance minister with respect to the income splitting program.

The Prime Ministerneeds to reverse that policy. He does not have to bundle it into the budget to try to mislead Canadians. Canadians are not stupid. They understand what the government has put forward in terms of the income split.

Another issue that I raised in the form of a question was on the EI premium exemption.

The government often challenges opposition members to come up with ideas. There was an idea that the leader of the Liberal Party brought to the floor of the House, and we challenged the government to recognize the value of the idea. What sort of response did we get? We got the envious New Democrats suggesting that it was not a good thing to do, even though Jack Layton supported the principle of what the Liberal Party was talking about; it was a part of his own election platform. However, I will expand upon that at another time.

What surprises me is that it is the government, this very Prime Minister, who do not recognize the value of what has been offered through the leader of the Liberal Party. We are talking about generating tens of thousands of jobs, in all regions of our country, and this has been confirmed by independent stakeholders, individuals who have a lot to contribute to the debate. There is no question that it would do that.

I would compare that with the government. The government says, “No, we don't want to accept that because we have our own plan”. Its “own plan” is the small business job credit, using EI, talking about deductions on EI. How many jobs would that create? There is a big huge question mark on that issue. Would it be a few thousand jobs? What we do know is that there are critics saying that it such a bizarre plan that it could ultimately lead, in certain situations, to employers laying off employees, that it would be in their financial interest to consider the option of laying off employees. It is not just the Liberal Party that has made that assertion.

We have the Conservatives and the Prime Minister saying that they have a plan. Their plan would be nowhere near as effective as ours, nor does it have anywhere near as much support as the Liberal plan. Yet, they stand by it and proceed.

I only have one minute left, so perhaps I will talk about the Canada Post issue. I believe that the government has made a mess on the Canada Post issue and that there is a hidden agenda with respect to both the CBC and Canada Post. However, I will focus on Canada Post.

Canada Post announced a while ago that it is ending door-to-door delivery. The current government supports that. The government is the one that is allowing it to occur. That debate never occurred inside this chamber, and I believe that was a huge mistake. I get phone calls. I get people stopping by my office. I get petitions. I get postcards. Canadians are very upset that the government has done nothing on that particular issue.

There is a hidden agenda with Canada Post by this government. It prevails in its lack of desire to deal with what Canadians value, and that is the service provided by Canada Post.

My time has expired. Hopefully I will get a question and maybe I could comment on health care as well.

Mr. Speaker, when the member says “reverse income splitting for seniors”, he should know that most seniors will not derive any benefit from the income splitting that is being proposed by this plan.

He should not try to give that impression. How are single seniors living on their own going to benefit? They are not. The vast majority of seniors will not benefit from this program.

If the government wants seniors to benefit from something, it should deal with issues such as the cost of medication and health care, to which I made reference. The government did not renew the health care accord. Health care is important to our seniors.

If the minister wants to do something that would benefit our seniors, this income split is not going to benefit the vast majority of seniors. The price of medications should be dealt with, or looking at how to renew the health care accord. Those would have been better measures.

The reason we have the unheard of contributions toward health care today is not because of the government. Those record-high donations of federal dollars going to provinces are not because of the Conservative government; they are because of Paul Martin. It is the health care accord that instituted that. That is the reason that we have the health care we have today.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his speech, but I must admit that he has a lot of nerve.

In Quebec, there is a situation involving the packaging of meat. Some grocers are changing the best-before labels on meat. The Liberals are very good at changing labels and trying to pass off their tainted meat as fresh meat.

The Liberals' new media pitch is standing up for the middle class. The Conservatives abandoned the middle class a long time ago.

That being said, let us come back to Canada Post. In 2006, during my first election campaign, the big thing that everyone was talking about in Quebec was the closure of the postal sorting station. That happened under the Liberal watch, so it is not just the Conservatives who are dismantling Canada Post and allowing the crown corporation's management to destroy our postal services, quite the contrary.

How can my colleague claim to defend the interests of people who want home mail delivery?

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is in existence, in good part, because of the Liberal Party of Canada having been in government for the vast majority of the years in which we have been a confederation. At no point in time has it ever said it would get rid of door-to-door delivery.

Having said that, the member made reference to needs, and somehow started to blame what I suspect is maybe the provincial Liberal government. Let me suggest that all he needs to do is look at middle-class jobs, at what is happening in Manitoba, where the NDP is killing the pork industry. The provincial government in Manitoba is not allowing the pork industry to develop. It has been at a huge cost. I have had tours of the Maple Leaf plant, in Brandon, where they cannot meet the demand. There is not enough pork, and now it has to look outside of the province. This is purely because of NDP policy.

The member should not try to tell me that the New Democrats are the only political entity that can take the high road in terms of the middle class. That is just not the case.

I was thinking that if I were asked by some of the wonderful people in the riding I represent—volunteers like Randine Hardy, Mary Ann Smith, or Tom Dalimor, or some of our wonderful youth who take leadership positions, like Andrea Choo or Yuan Kim or Ania Salehirad—what a budget implementation act is, I would go back to a question of mission and values. I would say that a budget implementation act is like a rudder steering the ship of government. The budget itself is like the road map, but if we do not understand the mission and values of the government, then it would be hard to put these things in context.

I like to think that this government stands for values that Canadians cherish: freedom, responsibility, equality, compassion, and integrity. We see these values in acts like the budget implementation act. In very specific terms, this act touches upon the economy, on jobs, on responsible resource development, on health, and fitness and volunteers. I will take us through some of these things in the act and am looking forward to questions from my friends.

There are many good things in Canada's economic action plan 2014. There is the promotion of jobs and economic growth, which we see brought forward through the budget implementation act. There is an underlying commitment to return to balanced budgets in 2015, a sense of that responsibility. While we are controlling departmental spending, federal support to Canadians, like seniors benefits, would keep growing. That is essential to some of the leading seniors in the riding I represent, like Brooke Campbell, Garry Sutherland, and Christopher Hebb, who have been bringing me issues about RRSPs and how these can be improved.

We see in this budget implementation act major transfers to provinces for health care, education, and other services that Canadians rely on. These will keep growing to record levels.

There is a focus on connecting Canadians with available jobs, which is key in the sunshine coast and corridor areas of the riding I represent. We see the launching of the Canada job grant so that Canadians can get the skills training they need to get in-demand jobs. There is the creation of the Canada apprentice loan, which would provide apprentices in Red Seal trades access to over $100 million in interest-free loans each year; and there is the launching of a job-matching service, a new service that would match Canadians looking for work with the employers who want to hire them. There would be more paid internships for young Canadians. In fact, $55 million would be invested to create such internships. This is good news for universities in the riding I represent, including Quest University Canada, Capilano University, Vancouver Island University, as well as for academic institutions across the country.

There is also the initiative to help older workers get back to work, with some $75 million invested in this targeted initiative to support these older workers who want to participate in the job market. That is something we often hear about at breakfast tables at the West Vancouver seniors' centre.

Budget 2014 also focuses on ensuring responsible resource development and on conserving Canada's natural heritage. If there is something that matters to British Columbians in addition to creating jobs and spurring the economy, it is ensuring that we preserve our wonderful natural heritage and that we have sustainable investment in the environment and fisheries. Groups like the Future of Howe Sound Society and people who want to ensure that if there is an LNG natural gas project at Squamish Woodfibre, it is done according to international standards of safety and good environmental standards, will be delighted to see the initiatives brought forth in the budget implementation act of 2014.

We see an emphasis on responsible resource development, including an increase in funding for the National Energy Board, to ensure that projects like that one I mentioned are reviewed in a comprehensive and timely manner. There is also tax relief for green energy, encouraging investment in clean energy generation thereby.

I come back to the conservation of Canada's natural heritage. Included in this effort are investments in Canada's national parks and historic canals; expanded tax relief for environmental conservation of lands; and bolstered recreational fisheries. The latter will be of great encouragement to the West Vancouver Streamkeepers and streamkeepers throughout our riding, as well as the Pacific Salmon Foundation, which does a great job in encouraging up to 40,000 volunteers throughout British Columbia.

I would like to touch on steps that our Conservative government is taking related to health and fitness, including the introduction of the children's fitness tax credit and the search and rescue volunteer tax credit.

It is Christmas time. It is a time for gift giving and for thinking of others above ourselves. Our government's job is to think of our citizens first. It is not about creating more bureaucracy, as other parties in the House would like to do. It is about empowering others to be the best they can be. That is where the value of responsibility comes in. It is in tune with that value that our government has recently doubled the children's fitness tax credit to $1,000, effective this tax year. It is also providing a refundable tax credit for the registration of a child under 16 in a sports program or physical activity.

Why is this children's tax credit so important? We have noticed dwindling rates of physical activity, alarming and increasing obesity rates, and climbing cardiovascular and diabetes problems. The economic costs of these issues are huge. The Public Health Agency of Canada is telling us that it costs $7 billion a year to deal with the consequences of inactivity relating to cardiovascular and diabetes problems. We are now facing the terrible situation where children will die at a younger age than their parents. This will be the first time in history that has ever happened.

I am pleased to see that these government initiatives are supported and bolstered by a bill that I have sponsored in the House, the national health and fitness day bill. We will be speaking to it this coming Monday, December 8, and voting on it for the third time on Wednesday, December 10. It is my hope that this will be a gift from the riding I represent to all Canadians as we approach the Christmas season.

Beside the children's fitness tax credit, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the increase and expansion in the universal child care benefit. This represents a benefit of almost $2,000 for families with children under 6, and $720 a year for parents with children aged 6 to 18. As someone who is passionate about promoting health and fitness for all Canadians, it is my hope that these changes will help parents offset the cost of having their children enrolled in organized sports or other physical activities.

Finally, I would like to emphasize how much the Conservative government shines a light on our volunteers. We have seen an illustration of this through the introduction of the search and rescue volunteer tax credit. Three years ago, the Conservative government introduced a volunteer firefighters' tax credit in recognition of the important role played by volunteer firefighters in contributing to the security and safety of Canadians. I was pleased to advocate for that tax credit on behalf of firefighters throughout the riding I represent.

In the same spirit of recognizing those who play a critical role in emergency preparedness and response, economic action plan 2014 announced a search and rescue volunteer tax credit for ground, air, and marine search and rescue volunteers. This credit would be available to search and rescue volunteers who perform at least 200 hours of service during the year.

I would like to bring this down to one individual, Tim Jones, a hero from the North Shore in the Vancouver area. He led the huge team of search and rescue volunteers in the North Shore, who over 50 years have committed themselves to more than 2,500 search and rescue operations. These people put themselves in harm's way day in and day out, with more than 200,000 hours of selfless effort by them in the North Shore search and rescue team.

Whether it is supporting volunteers, promoting health and fitness, spurring jobs, or creating economic development, these are all consistent with the five key values I mentioned at the beginning. These are the values of freedom, responsibility, equality, compassion, and integrity. I am proud to stand in the House on behalf of the people I represent and to speak on behalf of all Canadians and to support the government's budget implementation act, 2014.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to ask my colleague a question. He seems to be pretending that all of the Conservative government's bad statistics just do not exist.

The Conservatives always want to make us think that they have such a stellar track record, but plenty of numbers suggest the opposite. In 2013 alone, employment growth was slower than ever since the recession. Since the current Prime Minister took over, 300,000 more people have joined the ranks of the unemployed, and there are now 400,000 fewer manufacturing sector jobs.

Sherbrooke has been affected by the loss of manufacturing sector jobs. Some 400,000 good jobs have disappeared on the Conservatives' watch. Canada's trade balance is still in a deficit situation: $61 billion in 2013. In addition, the Conservatives have given us deficit budgets ever since coming to power.

Can the member explain how the Conservatives can call themselves good economic managers when they have run deficit budgets since coming to power?

John WestonConservative
West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to answer that question.

I am so glad that my colleague opposite talked about statistics because no government in the world has done better on that front than ours. Thanks to our government, next year's budget will be better than balanced and there are more than 1.2 million new jobs in our economy.

With respect to investment in our country, many experts have said that Canada is one of the best countries in the world to invest in. That is thanks both to hard-working Canadians and to this government's leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay my respects to a great Canadian who passed away last week. Brian Ronald Macdonald came to Stratford Festival in his early days, an inventive choreographer and director.

Born in Montreal, Brian travelled the world over with legendary ballet and theatre companies. A founding member of the National Ballet of Canada, he worked tirelessly on scores of projects from coast to coast. His work as a director of opera and musicals resonates in Stratford today.

A companion of the Order of Canada, Brian was recognized for his important contributions with numerous awards, including a Governor General's Performing Arts Award for Lifetime Artistic Achievement and the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal.

The arts are an important part of the Stratford and Canadian economy. We are fortunate to have had such a talented, dedicated artist in our country. Brian will be missed.

Mr. Speaker, December 10 marks the 25th anniversary of the conferring of the Nobel Peace Prize on the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people, His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

I rise in recognizing this occasion and to express my solidarity with Tibetans in their demands for religious freedom and respect for basic human rights.

Recently I had the opportunity to lead a delegation of Canadian parliamentarians to meet His Holiness in Vancouver, where we confirmed Canada's support for the cause of the Tibetan people.

His Holiness was made an honorary Canadian citizen in 2006. Last week, I met with Sikyong Dr. Lobsang Sangay, the democratically elected leader of the exiled Central Tibetan Administration. He too expressed dismay at the People's Republic of China for its disregard for Tibetans' legitimate requests for freedom and the rule of law.

On behalf of the proud Tibetan-Canadian community in Etobicoke—Lakeshore and across Canada, I urge the People's Republic of China to allow Tibetans to live their lives in freedom.

Mr. Speaker, as the holidays approach, our thoughts turn to giving, and who needs to be given something more than this government, which deserves to be given the boot?

We are reminded of a Dr. Seuss classic, but with a twist. It is the Grinch who stole Canada, and while we all wait for the Prime Minister's heart to grow three sizes, sadly, it seems to only shrink.

He said that if we give the Conservatives five years, we won't recognize Canada. How scary and true. He rolled back environmental standards and regulations, transforming our pristine wilderness into wastelands. He is making people who rely on a public pension work two more years before retiring. He maintained a mean-hearted freeze on first nations' education budgets so aboriginal children are forced to make do with less and less year after year. He made cuts to health care and hoarded money from every department, including Veterans Affairs. He is pushing injured members of our military out of the forces so they never become eligible for pensions. Food bank use is at an all-time high, and so is part-time, low-wage work.

Are his shoes just too tight? Is his sweater at fault? It may be the stress of the job, but in the new year it will be the NDP that will get the job done.

I also honour budget clerk Maryse Laganiere, nurse Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz , and all those who were present at École Polytechnique on that day, also victims of this madness. We continue to remember them and tell their families that we share their sorrow.

Mr. Speaker, one year ago, Ukrainians took to the streets to stand up for their democratic rights and to secure a stronger future for Ukraine.

With over 1.2 million people of Ukrainian heritage in Canada, our country as a whole stood and continues to stand in solidarity with Ukraine. What took place in Maidan inspired people around the world, as the people of Ukraine spoke louder than any government could have.

A year since the Maidan began, Ukraine has come a long way. In May President Poroshenko was elected, and in October the parliamentary election took place. As a Canadian parliamentary observer in Kiev for both elections, I witnessed first-hand the spirit of hope.

As we mark this one-year anniversary, we must continue to provide our support to Ukraine and to work with our allies in ending Russia's interference in Ukrainian affairs. Promoting Ukraine's sovereignty and the strengthening of ties with the EU and Canada is a priority

Mr. Speaker, this week marks the 70th anniversary of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed on December 7, 1944, which led to the creation of the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, headquartered in Montreal since its inception in 1947.

Canada is proud to be both the host state to this important United Nations specialized agency and a contributing member state of the council of ICAO.

I would like to ask all members of the House to join me in recognizing this milestone anniversary in Canadian and global civil aviation history and in underscoring Canada's continued strong dedication to the work and well-being of ICAO. This is demonstrated by our sustained commitment, together with our partners in Montreal and Quebec.

Canada, along with Quebec and Montreal, looks forward to hosting a reception this evening at ICAO headquarters in Montreal to commemorate this year's 70th anniversary of the creation of ICAO.